The key thing to remember about Governor elections is that they mean ZERO when it comes to Presidential races.
New York has had a Republican Governor since '94 and Massachusetts has had several Republican Governors in succession - both of them are Democratic locks, however. Ditto for California, where Arnold was elected on the strength of local issues - not on any kind of shift in California's substantial Democratic majority.
The same is true for Senatorial races, where in WV's case, it has two very strong incumbents, who aren't going anywhere until they die or retire. Nevertheless, those seats are very likely to be competitive once Byrd and Rockefeller evenutally move on.
Presidentially, however, by comparing the electoral maps for the most recent "competitive" races of 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000 you can see a fundamental tectonic shift underway in the disposition of the "Solid South." In 1976, Jimmy Carter perhaps had the defining "Solid South" election. After the blowouts of the 1980's, Bill Clinton's election in the 1992 shows an electoral map in chaos. By 1996, however, the familiar electoral map of 2000 can be seen as developing.
The trend underlying this paradigm shift is "The Culture War." Over the last 20-30 years, the old "Yellow Dog" Democrats have been slowly changing their affiliation from Democrat to Republican. That shift finally reached WV in 2000, where Bush won by nearly 6.5%.
The Democratic nominee may offer token competition in WV - sort of like how Bush will offer token competition in IL, but in the end, it is nearly impossible for me to imagine an incumbent who was elected in a close race losing a 6.5% margin.
TheOldLine
TheOldLine, welcome to the Atlas Forum! I am so happy to have another person from the Old Line State. Though I'm sure we disagree on issues, I think you make some valid points about West Virginia. This is the state that went for Dukakis by 5 points in 1988. But as elsewhere in the Midwest, the steel industry is employing fewer and fewer workers due to rising productivity. Furthermore, when Democrats throw their support behind free trade, the state is more likely to vote on social and tax issues. However, it is also quite a poor state with a stagnating population. I don't think it quite fits in perfectly with any region. With the upper middle and middle class supporting Republicans but the lower class supporting Democrats, the state could still be competitive if the election comes down to the issue that the not-so-well-off people of West Virginia care about. Such as health care.
I don't think this election will resolve around social issues, although those issues will be affected. Bush has built his presidency on foreign policy, but the election will focus around the economy and related issues.
